In all the discussion on the nandrolone issue, one point is consistently
by-passed. It has somehow become tacitly assumed that if the high
nandrolone levels occur in an "innocent" way, then it is somehow OK.
However the IAAF rules just mention the concentrations, they don't say
anything about how those concentrations came about. So, under the current
rules, an excess concentration results in disqualification, because it is
considered to be an unfair advantage over the other competitors, either in
the competition itself or in training leading up to a competition.
It is up to the athletes themselves to know whether their levels are
likely to be high, possibly due to a combination of high training and
dietary supplements. This is a lot to ask of the athlete when this is only
just being studied as a scientific possibility, but this is their
responsibility and no one else's.
Being disqualified does not necessarily imply cheating, and assuming
that it does just clouds the issue with protests of innocence. A relay
team disqualified for a hand-over outside the zone is not considered to
have cheated. They are just unfortunate to have violated the rules.
David Dallman
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Paul V. Tucknott wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/athletics/newsid_851000/851222.stm
>
> The issues surrounding drug testing of athletes are becoming ever more
> clouded after new developments involving British pair Mark Richardson and
> Dougie Walker along with Jamaican veteran Merlene Ottey.
> We asked BBC Sport's James Pearce, who has been following the controversy,
> to explain more about the trio's cases and the substance of nandrolone
> itself.
>
> British 400m runner Richardson has been cleared by UK Athletics of using the
> banned steroid.
>
> Sprinter Walker, suspended after a similar test, has won his High Court
> fight to take part in the Olympic trials.
>
> But the Britons' Olympic participation is still. in doubt, unlike Ottey who
> has now been cleared to compete by the International Amateur Athletics
> Federation (IAAF).
>
> James Pearce was first asked about what has happened to Mark Richardson?
>
> He tested positive in October for a substance called nandrolone. He was
> suspended by UK Athletics pending a disciplinary hearing.
>
> The disciplinary hearing has seen evidence from a research team and decided
> the charges should be dropped as there was no proof he took it deliberately.
>
>
>
> The evidence suggests you can be positive without doing anything
> illegal
>
> The BBC's James Pearce
> The evidence suggests you can be positive without doing anything illegal. It
> could be a combination of taking legal dietary substances and exercise.
> What is the situation with Dougie Walker?
>
> Dougie Walker tested positive in 1998, but was found not guilty about a year
> ago.
>
> But the IAAF wanted to take him to an arbitration hearing, which still
> hasn't taken place and is now likely to be in the middle of August.
>
> The latest development means he has won the right to take part in the
> British Olympic trials, but he could yet be suspended again.
>
> Next Wednesday, the IAAF will possibly announce they are allowing all the
> suspended athletes to take part in Olympic trials.
>
> What is nandrolone?
>
> Simply put, nandrolone is a performance-enhancing stimulant.
>
> The current debate centres on whether it can be produced naturally.
>
> Why has it been in the news so much?
>
> There's been a rash of positive tests, including Walker and Richardson.
>
>
>
> The IAAF is worred about potential lawsuits, says James Pearce
>
> The concern has been whether they are innocent parties to the problems of
> the testing process.
>
> So why is Ottey, who also tested positive, completely in the clear?
>
> The Jamaican is ahead of everybody. She's been to the arbitration hearing
> and been cleared by that.
>
> Walker's legal team are annoyed that they haven't been given a date for a
> hearing. They believe they have been treated unfairly. The IAAF say it's
> been delayed by UK Athletics.
>
> How reliable is the research?
>
> UK Athletics are very pleased with the research, which the IAAF have helped
> to fund. They are hoping the IAAF will take note of the research and take
> away the suspensions.
>
>
>
> Walker was given a boost in the High Court
>
> The problem with the research is it's no way near completed.
>
> They've only tested a small number of people when they need to test dozens,
> maybe hundreds.
>
> One test result which was interesting saw three non-athletes given dietary
> substances.
>
> The two who didn't take exercise tested negative.
>
> The third person tested positive for nandrolone.
>
> Does this leave the testing of athletes in crisis?
>
> The IAAF wants to make sure that everyone isn't given carte blanche to take
> nandrolone.
>
> It's a nightmare for the governing body, partly because of the legal
> implications.
>
> Athletes' careers are made and broken at the Olympics.
>
> The lawyers are going to be fairly concerned. An athlete could face a major
> loss of revenue for not taking part in the Olympics, and then be cleared
> later.
>
> I'm sure the IAAF must be very concerned about possible lawsuits.
>
>
>
David Dallman
CERN - SIS
